I'm taking the liberty to quote a suggestion made by Olivér Perge on the speedsolving.com forum: [quote:3adaczps] I say again like I said last year: remove the +2 penalty. I think it should be either solved state or DNF. Yes, it would definitely change the competitions as we know them but in a good way. People would start to learn how to finish the solve properly. As we know from Lars Vandenbergh's video, rushing the end of your solve not really saving that many time (around 0.16 seconds). For those who say that knowing that the penalty can only be a DNF and that causes stress, I say: either do not make a penalty or choose a less stressful hobby. I remember missing a WR average on a DNF. Yeah, I was nervous, but I didn't blame the rules for the DNF, I blamed myself. For those who say the +2 should remain, since it's a nice safety net to have, I say 45° is nice enough. I don't know what is the background story of the +2, why was it created in the first place, why is it 2 seconds, but I think we should remove it at all. Also it would solve the problem of having the same penalty for magic and 7x7x7. Last point (and this is the less important): it would finally make it clear for the non cubers and for the media if our cube was solved or not. Trying to explain for every different person why a cube with two moves off is valid is awkward and makes speedcubing look unproffessional. [/quote:3adaczps] And I added this: [quote:3adaczps]There is also some strange things allowed under current regulations that would be fixed by removing +2. There is +2 in all events but fewest moves, even in BLD. If a competitor are unsure if he has made the last M2 in a solve he could just do a R2 at take the +2. And that's in an event about memory. [/quote:3adaczps]

[b:3ptiqj1l][url:3ptiqj1l]http://www.worldcubeassociation.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=455&start=60[/url:3ptiqj1l][/b:3ptiqj1l] I'm not that 100% convinced of keeping that rule as last year, but I really doubt that the community is ready for this step. I'm convinced that at least 80% of all active speedcubers would like to keep that regulation. I suggest to remove that rule for feet and all BLD events already and to continue the discussion about the other events next year. Feet: The turning speed of this event is so slow and every turn is made a lot of more consiously then in normal speedsolving. I doubt that anyone has ever stopped a feetsolve with a misalignment that wasn't on purpose. So in fact the +2 rule only serves slower competitors to take advantage of it. BLD: Even if Mads M2/R2 example looks a bit constructed to me, I see the point. But moreover, if you miss any move in BLD, I don't think that you deserve your attempt to be valid.

[quote="SebastienAuroux":3p24y3zv]I suggest to remove that rule for feet and all BLD events already and to continue the discussion about the other events next year.[/quote:3p24y3zv] I agree with you. It would be a great first step for changing this rule entirely.

I also agree with Sebastien...it's quite logic for those events, especially for feet. But I'm not convinced to totally remove the +2 penalty. I don't see how this will make speedcubing look more professional.

[quote="Radu":1zjmk20m] But I'm not convinced to totally remove the +2 penalty. I don't see how this will make speedcubing look more professional.[/quote:1zjmk20m] Since when is it professional to get a result even though you don't finish? Usain Bolt doesn't get a result if he finishes his race 1 meter before the finish line. It's either goal or no goal in professional sports. Not close to a goal, you get half a point anyway. We have the 45 degrees rule to make the distinction between a finished solve and a solve that's almost finished, so by removing this strange rule we make every solve count more. We even have a format which is supposed to average these things out.

I don't think your comparison is quite fair. There are sports in the world, where penalties exist. Take gymnastics for example or diving. Where you get a mark(score) depending on how well you executed an exercise. If you didn't finished it perfectly, then you'll get a lower score (mark); you are not disqualified. The [b:10n6x3bt]solving time[/b:10n6x3bt] is the [b:10n6x3bt]score[/b:10n6x3bt] in speedcubing. And even if there wouldn't be sports where penalties exist in the world, I don't see this as a reason for us, not to have. We have to do what's best, even if it's different from the others. It is possible. After all, who is helped by this? The professionals, the sub 14avg ones? No...or very little! It usually helps the newcomers with very bad averages to get an average. They are doing mistakes mostly and I think the DNF averages will increase significantly if this rule is changed. I don't necessarily hold on the idea to keep +2s, but I'm not convinced to remove it yet... and personally I think that it DO makes speedcubing look more professional as it covers this detail.

[quote="Radu":3pqgp2q0]I don't think your comparison is quite fair. There are sports in the world, where penalties exist. Take gymnastics for example or diving. Where you get a mark(score) depending on how well you executed an exercise. If you didn't finished it perfectly, then you'll get a lower score (mark); you are not disqualified.[/quote:3pqgp2q0] I don't advocate adding a penalty for not finishing perfectly. The DNF is only if you don't finish at all. I'm pretty sure you don't get a result if you fail to complete the task in diving. (you would have to miss the water in order to fail). You are right about gymnastics, but that sport does not compare to our. It's about technique, aesthetics and style and not a timed race. I bicycle stage racing there is a rule where you get the same time as other competitors if you crash close to the finish line, but you still need to cross the line in order to get that time. [quote="Radu":3pqgp2q0]After all, who is helped by this? The professionals, the sub 14avg ones? No...or very little! It usually helps the newcomers with very bad averages to get an average. They are doing mistakes mostly and I think the DNF averages will increase significantly if this rule is changed.[/quote:3pqgp2q0] It's not really about helping anyone directly. It's about making it clear that you have to finish the task in order to get a result. Indirectly it makes it easier to understand for outsiders and it puts extra pressure on competitors because each solve matters more now. I don't see increased DNF averages as a problem. If you can't complete the task more than 3 ouf 5, then you don't deserve a result.

[quote="MadsMohr":24kt8v7h]I'm pretty sure you don't get a result if you fail to complete the task in diving. (you would have to miss the water in order to fail).[/quote:24kt8v7h] Actually, you can "fail" a dive simply by performing an incorrect dive. For example, if you do two flips instead of three, you fail the dive. But as you say, this doesn't provide a good comparison to cubing. I agree that removing this regulation from BLD events and maybe feet solving is a good start.

While I understand the sentiment I disagree with removing the +2 penalty. As stated before, this rule change will hurt inexperienced cubers but won't help anyone. It makes the rules easier for outsiders to understand but the sport is not for them. I think 2 seconds is enough to penalize sloppy cubers without invalidating potentially HUNDREDS of results. This issue has been brought to the table time and time again, and it seems evey time there is a small minority in favor of removing the +2 penalty but the majority of cubers prefer to leave the rule as-is.

I just want to point out that I cannot think of a single sport that would allow a good comparison to cubing as far as the general idea. We do not run down a track, we do not jump into a swimming pool, etc. We solve a puzzle, and I think being one move off solved is pretty close and shows that the competitor knows how to solve the puzzle, and is that not the general idea? The speed aspect is in addition to this far more fundamental idea. Now I know you might say "but everyone here already knows how to solve the puzzle. The point is to solve it as fast as possible and if you don't do that then you fail, simple". I don't really have a response to this. I just think it's a really harsh stance to take. People make mistakes, why severely punish them for it? Is 2 seconds not enough of a punishment?

One of the charms of sport is that you have to perform when it matters. In soccer there is the penalty shootout and I can tell you that it's very easy to score 5/5 in practice but it's not the easy thing to do when a game might be decided by it. So my main argument is about maturing our sport and move it from a hobby to more of a real sport. We used the word professional earlier in this thread and while it served as an argument I would rather use the word serious. Serious play. Yes it IS harsh to penalize a cuber that for some reason fails to make the last move, but that's the whole point. How that last move is missed does really not matter in my opinion, if you are sloppy then it's your own fault. If you are inexperienced then practice some more. Bad luck, yeah it sucks but good luck tends to follow those who practice. The only problem I see in removing the +2 rule is that judge rulings could be harder to make when you have to decide between completed or DNF. (I would actually be one of the people that would suffer from this because I get nervous in big competitions and are not really that good, yet!)

Another point I would like to make is that the same penalty applies to someone who does completely solve the cube (the purpose of the entire thing) and then overshoots, or the cube bounces and does a turn by itself. Why should a cuber be penalised because we do not have the technology to stop timing a solve as soon as it reaches the solved position?

[quote="Dene":32fclwxx]Another point I would like to make is that the same penalty applies to someone who does completely solve the cube (the purpose of the entire thing) and then overshoots, or the cube bounces and does a turn by itself. Why should a cuber be penalised because we do not have the technology to stop timing a solve as soon as it reaches the solved position?[/quote:32fclwxx] My Square-1 is loose enough that it could make two turns on a fall and DNF. Why should I be punished?

[quote="Dene":1sccfetf]Another point I would like to make is that the same penalty applies to someone who does completely solve the cube (the purpose of the entire thing) and then overshoots, or the cube bounces and does a turn by itself. Why should a cuber be penalised because we do not have the technology to stop timing a solve as soon as it reaches the solved position?[/quote:1sccfetf] If a competitor get's a PLL skip and fails to recognize it and applies an U turn and regrets it and undo that turn before stopping the timer then that mistake should count. The puzzle is first solved when it's checked after the timer has stopped. All changes that makes it harder seems harsh, but I think it's a good thing to adjust the level of competition as the level of skill increases.

[quote="MadsMohr":x6l57duv]If a competitor get's a PLL skip and fails to recognize it and applies an U turn and regrets it and undo that turn before stopping the timer then...[/quote:x6l57duv] Do you really think that is possible? I don't think this is realistic at all.

I've done that several times my self. Realistic yes, not that likely for competitors that are better than me. The point I was trying to make was that it's not enough to just solve the puzzle in order to get a result. You need to start the timer in the right way and stop the timer without any accidents. A speedcubing attempt shows both the ability to solve the puzzle and the ability to start/stop the timer.

[quote="Dene":2np08bta]Why should a cuber be penalised because we do not have the technology to stop timing a solve as soon as it reaches the solved position?[/quote:2np08bta] There are actually very few sports that measure just a single aspect. In the 100 meter dash, if you start too early, too bad. Time is lost by the person making sure they don't go too early. Long jump? It's measured by a required departure point. Sure, they could be redone so that they're measuring purely how fast you run or how far you jump, but they don't. And we measure how fast you can solve the cube and that includes stopping.

So what you're saying is that the best way to measure things is the same way that it has been done for thousands of years? Could you please justify this because personally I see no problem with being modern and up to date with technology. Perhaps I am just too young and hip.

[quote="Dene":1kpgd5fm]So what you're saying is that the best way to measure things is the same way that it has been done for thousands of years? Could you please justify this because personally I see no problem with being modern and up to date with technology. Perhaps I am just too young and hip.[/quote:1kpgd5fm] Go ahead and put together a quote on how much a self-timing could would cost? It's a cost issue and a simplicity issue. And what's to say the person actually solves it? What if they never made the final turn? Then we're giving them credit for solving when they actually didn't solve.

I remember at my very first compeitition (WC07) that they extended the +2 rule for M moves too (correct me if I'm wrong!). It was really weird and many people were surprised, and sure enough, they removed after all. But by the logic which says "we should allow to finish one turn off", all the Roux and CF users should be able to finish with an M move off. Of course by move I mean one physical turn on the cube, I am aware of the fact that M is two moves by the WCA, but we excecute it by literally doing a L' R very, very rarely in a speed solve. So, for them that is one move off and if they are lazy/loose they should not be punished that hard, right? Of course they should. I would like to ask everyone to imagine if we had removed the +2. Would it be different? Yes, it would be very different. Would it be harder to finish a puzzle properly? No, not at all. I am pretty sure the people who often get +2 are the people who rush the very end of the solve. It's just a bad habbit which is really not that hard to change. I took the time and forced myself to do averages with DNF instead of +2s and sure enough, I finished with no penalites at all. I saw Breandan doing +2s all the time, either on official solves or just practice solves. The first thing he usually says is: "God, I'm so stupid!". He realizes immediately that getting a +2 doesn't worth the rush and getting a 9.46 solve (Bristol Open 2009, final round) with a +2 is way worse than getting a 9.5-9.6 seconds solve. The same person was calm enough to finish first at the WC09 finals, with no penalties. At the same round, Rowe Hessler got a DNF for a solve where he did an f move instead of an F. He could have been 2nd at the competition and could have won a lot of money without that mistake. We don't give +2 when your "move off" is in the middle of the solve, why give it when it is in the end of the solve? As many others stated before me, finishing the puzzle (properly) is the part of the whole solve, people should just learn to do that. We are talking about being professional and unprofesssional, well letting finish a feet solve with a move off in purpose and letting do a random R2 at the end of a blindfolded solve is really not professional in my opinion. [quote="Dene":1xsgze02]So what you're saying is that the best way to measure things is the same way that it has been done for thousands of years? Could you please justify this because personally I see no problem with being modern and up to date with technology. Perhaps I am just too young and hip.[/quote:1xsgze02] I would very much look forward to this! When I started cubing Leyan Lo held the single WR with 11.13 and from the look of the video I thought that the timer was being stopped by the cube hitting the mat. (I had no idea what a stack mat timer is.) If such a high-tech system, which could measure only the solving time would exist, I think we would start using it. But until then we have what we have.

Sorry, Olivér, but I'm not convinced by your arguments. For the M moves, it should stay how it is and I agree that M is 2 moves, not 1. It's not WCA's business what method the competitors use. Everyone uses what he wants and the rules should be made regardless what the solving method is. Imagine what if we had +2s for every first 2 or 3 off moves. Like, 2 off-moves, being +4s. Would it be unfair? Personally I think not, because everyone sees how to solve a puzzle within 2 moves (the same argument goes also for the current regulations), but it would be very impractical to have such a rule. The current regulations with +2s for 1 off move, is a decent solution I think and not exaggerated. I think you brought the best arguments with Breandan's example, for keeping this rule. It's obvious that +2 doesn't worth the rush, so every competitor will try to finish the solve properly. So, I don't see anyone having an advantage from it. Changing it to DNF will be just a disadvantage for the good cubers, who might miss an average and not get in to the next round, just because of a rush or unluck. If I remember right, it happened to Yumu Tabuchi at WC2009. He got a DNF in the first 2 solves and unfortunately a POP in the last solve, so he missed the final. He might have won at that time the 1st place. Changing +2s to DNF will just increase the number of cases like this and I see no benefit from it. What about the cases when a move is made when the cube drops on the surface? I think we all passed through this with an Eastsheen 2x2. I totally agree that for feet, BLD and maybe even bigger cubes, it should be reconsidered. As I am not a very good cuber, I have no personal interest in this. I am no fanatic of this rule at all and I am open to change it as soon as I see a more convincing argument. PS - I would agree to change a U2 (a double move) to DNF though - or more precise an over 90 degrees move. I'm ok with that.

[quote="Radu":13f5uue6] For the M moves, it should stay how it is and I agree that M is 2 moves, not 1. It's not WCA's business what method the competitors use. Everyone uses what he wants and the rules should be made regardless what the solving method is. [/quote:13f5uue6] It's not a question of method but a question of common sense. A M move is just moving one conncted part of the cube in a given direction, it can bedone with only 1 finger, so it's definitely 1 move not 2. I know that most cubers view it as 2 moves because they have been taught that 3^3 centers are fixed and thus that M is equivalent to L R'. But if it's not WCA business to take into account what method competitors use, it's not its business either to investigate how they have been taught to cube, sorry.

[quote="BryanLogan":1ux8h10t][quote="Dene":1ux8h10t]So what you're saying is that the best way to measure things is the same way that it has been done for thousands of years? Could you please justify this because personally I see no problem with being modern and up to date with technology. Perhaps I am just too young and hip.[/quote:1ux8h10t] Go ahead and put together a quote on how much a self-timing could would cost? It's a cost issue and a simplicity issue. And what's to say the person actually solves it? What if they never made the final turn? Then we're giving them credit for solving when they actually didn't solve.[/quote:1ux8h10t] All I'm saying is that we should not punish people because we lack the technological sophistication. It may have a negative side-effect as you pointed out, but let's be honest a +2 is a bad thing no matter what happens.

I still adhere to my statement about feet and BLD, but after re-reading last years discussion, which is actually just the same as this year's discussion, I'm again totally against abolishing the +2 rule for misalignments in general. +2 seconds is already a very harsh penalty, already for me as ~15 cuber, and even more for world's top speedcubers. Where is the sense of judging DNF instead of +2? Do we want to be that perfectionist that we want to cause DNF averages instead of severe worsening of it as we already have? Also I cannot hear anymore about that "looks more professional" argument. The WCA is a [b:3p82knec]non-profit[/b:3p82knec] organisation! It is about fun for the participants and not about attractiveness for outsiders. So why would we care if anyone isn't able to accept what an "almost solved cube" is and why we judge it with a penalty of 2 seconds?

[quote="SebastienAuroux":3rhvj30k]+2 seconds is already a very harsh penalty, already for me as ~15 cuber, and even more for world's top speedcubers. Where is the sense of judging DNF instead of +2? Do we want to be that perfectionist that we want to cause DNF averages instead of severe worsening of it as we already have?[/quote:3rhvj30k] In my opinion letting everyone not to care about the finishing of the solve and do not forcing them to do a solve properly is not harsh at all. Giving +2 for touching the puzzle while starting the timer is a lot more harsh than that. I clearly don't see why it would result a lot more DNF averages. Does getting more than one +2 in one average that common? And knowing that you will penalized even harder would make you get even less penalty. All in all it would cause better averages, because we would have a lot less +2 situations and many of the solves would end just normally. That is just my opinion. I tried it at home, I did a couple of average of 12s and when I knew I was getting a DNF for a misalignement, I ended up with averages with no penalties at all. Maybe it is just me but I don't get all nervous when it comes to solved or DNF. Once again, I think the community would get used to it pretty fast. [quote="SebastienAuroux":3rhvj30k]Also I cannot hear anymore about that "looks more professional" argument. The WCA is a [b:3rhvj30k]non-profit[/b:3rhvj30k] organisation! It is about fun for the participants and not about attractiveness for outsiders. So why would we care if anyone isn't able to accept what an "almost solved cube" is and why we judge it with a penalty of 2 seconds?[/quote:3rhvj30k] WCA is a growing association. The number of speedcubers is getting almost doubled in each year. The World Championship will be a competition for the best competitors only, in like 2-4 years. The big competitions are [b:3rhvj30k]already[/b:3rhvj30k] sponsored by companies such as 7towns and others. Sure, WCA is a non-profit organisation (For the record, FIFA is a non-profit organisation and earned millions of euros on the 2006 World Cup.) but the idea is not to get [i:3rhvj30k]profit[/i:3rhvj30k] but to get support from big companies. (In other words: we spend all the money we get from them on the competitions, nobody is getting richer by them.) I don't want speedcubing to become a circus where top cubers are treated as celebritites, but I do want it to become a well recognised, proffesional sport sometime. Of course having fun is really important, but in the future, that I see for this hobby, the top level will have to become much more proffesional than the level right now. Getting rid of the +2 would be a milestone to that, in my opinion.

Oh, +2 penalty coming back? You know my opinion, I'm not going to explain the 15 or so good/logical reasons why it should not exist. WCA should get rid of this bad bad idea, just like they killed the old "pop rule".

[quote="Gilles":32esqyx3]WCA should get rid of this bad bad idea, [b:32esqyx3]just like they killed the old "pop rule"[/b:32esqyx3].[/quote:32esqyx3] Great example! It was the same idea: make it easier to the competitors. There were hundreds of cubers when these regulations were created, now we have tens of thousands. We need better filters.

I would also like to remove the +2, which will remove some actual issues like clock being the only speedsolving event with no penalties, or people asking for a penalty dependent on the type of puzzle. Also, it bothers me that this square-1 configuration is still considered as solved (scramble : (0,-1) (1,1) (0,0) ) [url=http://img163.imageshack.us/i/sq1plustwo.png/:24uxaczr][img:24uxaczr]http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/5415/sq1plustwo.png[/img:24uxaczr][/url:24uxaczr]

[quote="Clement Gallet":2kj8ezuj]I would also like to remove the +2, which will remove some actual issues like clock being the only speedsolving event with no penalties, or people asking for a penalty dependent on the type of puzzle. Also, it bothers me that this square-1 configuration is still considered as solved (scramble : (0,-1) (1,1) (0,0) ) [url=http://img163.imageshack.us/i/sq1plustwo.png/:2kj8ezuj][img:2kj8ezuj]http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/5415/sq1plustwo.png[/img:2kj8ezuj][/url:2kj8ezuj][/quote:2kj8ezuj] Is it? Solved with +2, you mean? I agree that people sometimes don't care enough about the last move, but there are cases where the cube will turn when hitting the table, and that is not enough to be a DNF, in my opinion. "Well, it's actually the competitor's fault, because he dropped the cube that way..." Let's use the Rubik's timer then...